Absolute BULLSHIT

[JenT]

Lying asshole, Ohh and quote where I said she was bankrupt, Go ahead prove your point, but do it in another thread moron.

I am 110% sure you started a thread saying the law suits were bankrupting sarah pa8 lin.
The fact is palin was governor which means long hours and time away from home, please deny a governor of any states only works 8 to 5. The you have her husband who works for BP and from a reliable source I know he works at the gathering station which is in north alaska near the artic cyrcle and a ten hour flight from wassila and my source works two or three weeks on and then has two weeks off. So who is taking care of their children and parenting them.

She had amassed a debt of 50000 and no end in sight. So ya it was BANKRUPTING here, I did not say she WAS bankrupt as Dumb Ass keeps claiming.

And since when is it YOUR business how a family cares for their children? Since we have absolutely no reports of neglect, and believe me with the spot light on her we would know, your little assumption is proven ignorant. Usual crap from the usual sources, make shit up and then pretend it is true. Must be nice to be able to dictate to others how they work and how they take care of their families. How about WE do the same for you?

The only child abuse I saw was jerks like Letterman abusing Sarah Palin's kids. And I bet they're doing it on purpose. Nobody can be that wicked on accident.

 

[JenT]

you are a fucking nutzo...sorry ...there is no use talking to you....you lie and twist shit....

i never said you said shit now did it.....

i said it has nothing to do with liberals has everything to do with her family or friends reporting her to social services.....show me the lie ..you fucking whiner

wow

 

[JenT]

The information I've seen so far IS limited. So although I am generally reticent to agree with Bodey, she may have a point here, at least to date.

In NY, if one possesses a gun without a license, one has (in most circumstances) committed a crime.

This raises the first obvious question: did mommy have a gun license/permit?

If so, and if she "posed" the kids in her own home while the gun was not loaded, then there is no valid case against her.

If she had no license/permit, then even possession inside her home would be a misdemeanor. (And, if unloaded, it would also be just a misdemeanor outside unless the the gun was stolen or defaced or if the 'defendant" had previously been convicted of a crime, in which cases, it would be a felony).

NY's Penal Law says, in relevant part,



AND



Of course, there's also this:



and



So, based on what we know so far about the mom, her license status and the loaded or unloaded status of the gun in question, I'd say we don't know much of anything about how valid or invalid the official charge(es) might be. But my hunch is the case is going to sooner or later just "go away" by way of an 'adjournment in contemplation of dismissal' ESPECIALLY if the gun did not meet the legal definition of "loaded."

Sure but the drumbeat to ban all guns has been pounding, so even a toe over the line is a big deal.

Obama sees the Constitution as restrictive. I see it as a wall of defense and worthy of guarding.

(sound of shotgun racking) step away slowly

I personally don't know enough about the facts of this case to reach any firm conclusion about it.

I am convinced that the 2d Amendment restricts the power of the FEDERAL Government, but not convinced that it does (properly) restrict the power of the State Governments to require permits, etc.

President Obama is SUPPOSED to see the constitution as restrictive because in many regards what it says is designed to restrict his powers and Congress' powers. The problem in this President's attitude is that he appears more than willing to simply ignore those restrictions. [As my old buddy you to say, "He ain't right."] And Congress is not inclined to keep President Obama in check -- hell they are willing accomplices. The Federal Courts have largely abdicated their duties in this regard. The "press" is in league with them and wouldn't dare "report" the import of what Washington D.C. is actually up to.

So our system of a Constitutionally limited REPUBLIC is left almost without any of its intended or evolved checks and balances.

That leaves just TWO of the vanguard of checks and balances still available.

Federalism.

And, us. We, the People.

Liability, not to ask you to look anything up but only if you know offhand, when was the last time it was this imbalanced with this kind of potential to wreck us?

 

[Liability]

Sure but the drumbeat to ban all guns has been pounding, so even a toe over the line is a big deal.

Obama sees the Constitution as restrictive. I see it as a wall of defense and worthy of guarding.

(sound of shotgun racking) step away slowly

I personally don't know enough about the facts of this case to reach any firm conclusion about it.

I am convinced that the 2d Amendment restricts the power of the FEDERAL Government, but not convinced that it does (properly) restrict the power of the State Governments to require permits, etc.

President Obama is SUPPOSED to see the constitution as restrictive because in many regards what it says is designed to restrict his powers and Congress' powers. The problem in this President's attitude is that he appears more than willing to simply ignore those restrictions. [As my old buddy you to say, "He ain't right."] And Congress is not inclined to keep President Obama in check -- hell they are willing accomplices. The Federal Courts have largely abdicated their duties in this regard. The "press" is in league with them and wouldn't dare "report" the import of what Washington D.C. is actually up to.

So our system of a Constitutionally limited REPUBLIC is left almost without any of its intended or evolved checks and balances.

That leaves just TWO of the vanguard of checks and balances still available.

Federalism.

And, us. We, the People.

Liability, not to ask you to look anything up but only if you know offhand, when was the last time it was this imbalanced with this kind of potential to wreck us?

I don't know how to look that up, frankly.

I'm sure we've had significant majorities before in Congress for the Dem Party at the same time that a Dem President led the Executive Branch. But (cautiously giving FDR a little credit here) I am not sure any Administration has ever been so intent on just ignoring Constitutional restrictions or any Judicial Branch ever so indifferent to its own responsibilites in this regard.

 

[Ravi]

Any pictures yet or further details or are we all just going with RGS's emotional fairy tale of what happened?

 

[bodecea]

Any pictures yet or further details or are we all just going with RGS's emotional fairy tale of what happened?

Haven't found any pics yet.

 

[Gudrid]

I am not sure any Administration has ever been so intent on just ignoring Constitutional restrictions or any Judicial Branch ever so indifferent to its own responsibilites in this regard.

Where the fuck have you been the last 8 years? Between free speech zones, the patriot act, patriot 2, wiretap issues, etc....any administration has a long way to go to catch up with Cheney. Oops, I mean Bush. None of which in practice managed to catch up with the abuses during the era of McCarthyism. Or, say, the Jim Crow era.

Partisanship is amazing sometimes. It makes people who have never seen a picture "know" that either the parents were abusive or that the parents were abused by the system. And it makes every single president either the "worst" or the "best."

 

[Liability]

I am not sure any Administration has ever been so intent on just ignoring Constitutional restrictions or any Judicial Branch ever so indifferent to its own responsibilites in this regard.

Where the fuck have you been the last 8 years? Between free speech zones, the patriot act, patriot 2, wiretap issues, etc....any administration has a long way to go to catch up with Cheney. Oops, I mean Bush. None of which in practice managed to catch up with the abuses during the era of McCarthyism. Or, say, the Jim Crow era.

Partisanship is amazing sometimes. It makes people who have never seen a picture "know" that either the parents were abusive or that the parents were abused by the system. And it makes every single president either the "worst" or the "best."

Your tired, dishonest and trite litany of alleged Constitutional violations don't qualify.

You really are lame in the debate department.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

NY mom charged after posing kids with guns - Yahoo! News

If the weapons were not loaded they are absolutely no danger at all. This is the nanny state at work. These people are being charged for a none crime because of politically correct garbage.

I suspect the law states that the children can not be unsupervised with weapons. Someone link me to a law that forbids the mere presence of weapons as a crime for children.

Well, hell, Gunny, aren't TOY GUNS illegal for God's sake? or at least banned?

What is sad is these people probably can not afford an attorney and so will take it up the wazoo because of it. I am betting the NRA will not defend them cause of politically correct problems.

This is an outrage, a violation of their civil and Constitutional rights. An invasion of their family rights by an illegal court system.

I don't think that the NRA is really that concerned about being "politically correct" so I see no reason why they wouldn't help those people out isn't that what the NRA is all about?

 

[Gudrid]

Yeah, liability, good response. You sure showed me.



You're a brainwashed partisan hack, and you have my pity.

 

[Liability]

Yeah, liability, good response. You sure showed me.



You're a brainwashed partisan hack, and you have my pity.

And you think your trite litany of allegations WAS a good post or that the quoted "rejoinder" shows anybody anything other than that you are a lame-o?

Ok.

Think that.

 

[JenT]

Well, hell, Gunny, aren't TOY GUNS illegal for God's sake? or at least banned?

What is sad is these people probably can not afford an attorney and so will take it up the wazoo because of it. I am betting the NRA will not defend them cause of politically correct problems.

This is an outrage, a violation of their civil and Constitutional rights. An invasion of their family rights by an illegal court system.

I don't think that the NRA is really that concerned about being "politically correct" so I see no reason why they wouldn't help those people out isn't that what the NRA is all about?

If there's been abusive wielding of gun laws, they probably will.
Good people.

 

[strollingbones]

why does the empty vessel make the most noise?

 

[Liability]

why does the empty vessel make the most noise?

Because you will not shut up!

 

[strollingbones]

i am still waiting for sgt to show me where i said...he said...it just goes on and on with him.....

but now he has a little cheerleader...how cute!

 

[strollingbones]

yall are so cute....defending the lost and hopeless....what a great cause you two are!

 

[del]

why does the empty vessel make the most noise?

to get to the other side.

 

[Liability]

i am still waiting for sgt to show me where i said...he said...it just goes on and on with him.....

but now he has a little cheerleader...how cute!

Ah silly little boningstrolls. I was not "cheerleading" anybody.

I just saw your dopey question and thought the answer I provided fit perfectly in your case.

Do try to make an appointment with your supplier to get a huge case of get over yourself.

 

[Gudrid]

Yeah, liability, good response. You sure showed me.



You're a brainwashed partisan hack, and you have my pity.

And you think your trite litany of allegations WAS a good post or that the quoted "rejoinder" shows anybody anything other than that you are a lame-o?

Ok.

Think that.

In other words, you still can't come up with a better response so you'll again default to namecalling. Let me know when you're ready to have an adult discussion, and maybe even use your brain on a higher level than beavis and butthead "heheheheheh lame" remarks.

 

[Liability]

Yeah, liability, good response. You sure showed me.



You're a brainwashed partisan hack, and you have my pity.

And you think your trite litany of allegations WAS a good post or that the quoted "rejoinder" shows anybody anything other than that you are a lame-o?

Ok.

Think that.

In other words, you still can't come up with a better response * * * *

In other words, this kind of crap you just spewed is STILL the "strongest" thing in your would-be arsenal.

You remain an epic fail.